Morals acted out in fear rather than rationality defies the concept of freedom. If you do not agree with the rationale behind the action being imposed by a religious faith, and if you believe that, after proper thought, the action even questions universal morality, then why go through with it?

Many faiths and governments have used fear to impose action. They impose that someone will punish those who disagree to get what they want. In the end, the use of fear superimposes itself and overrides what one is truly supposed to be done, until it becomes normality.

There's a story once on the whole mob rule, where when the mob punishes a singular entity until he complies, he ends up imposing the same rule on others until they comply. Once everyone is forced into compliance, they don't even know or question the logic behind it. They just follow.

It is time we all step back and review laws and actions being imposed. The question is as follows.

Let's suppose that there is no god, or heaven, or hell in the afterlife. Let's suppose that you only have consequences to deal with your actions.

1. How does your action affect others, and the environment, both in the present and future?
2. Is the consequence of the action ever worth the trouble?
3. Does your action do good for others, as well as yourself?

If your action harms others, EVEN IF, such an action or punishment to others does not justify their action (you punish someone who has not caused harm on others or the environment), then said action is immoral and baseless.

If your action has risks and complications that might arise to which unhappiness will be caused both to you as well as the others, then you should not commit the action.

The biggest priority in considering an action is never what the others think of your action, but how it affects them, if they are involved. Thus, causing harm on others or towards the environment is not acceptable. That is your first thought prior to performing your action.

Now, let's take in the fact that you might have a pre-existing faith. If your current faith asks you to refuse serving someone because of who they are in terms of race, gender, or gender preference, otherwise, you will be punished by your own god, then how is that action considered moral?

The above statement is one of the many hundred actions we have to ask ourselves outside our own religion to determine the legitimacy of our own action. Alienating someone for who they are, judging them for their personal choice that does not harm others is considered universally immoral, and thus, regardless of faith, should not be followed.

If we focus on the concept of love and compassion towards others, then we don't need religious leaders, or religion to tell us what to do. This is our natural compass that will guide us. Religion, for the longest time, married itself to politics and personal human ignorance. Half of what religious leaders interpret is a misinterpretation against universal morality.

The wise, silent men and women who observed humanity take pause and watch consequences to understand how actions affect society. Their voice though, is not what we hear. We only hear what is the propaganda being imposed in society.

Society is easier controlled as lambs. If predators have a choice, they prefer their meals to fall in a single line formation towards their den, waiting to be slaughtered.

The major understanding on what is universally moral, or what makes sense, does not really come from religion, it comes from education; this is why we have imposed the separation of church and state. It is important for society to evolve and discover from its actions and understand how we are to be more humanistic rather than be shackled to ignorant laws.

This world is to be designed for love and tolerance, peace can only be achieved once we disregard labels and borders. It is time to stop judging, it is time to stop deciding out of fear. In the end, the consequences of your action is what effect it does on others, and not what threat or reward is promised by religion.